Tag Archives: EPA Scott Pruitt

Gather ‘round Scott Pruitt’s EPA bonfire

EPA head Scott Pruitt will be testifying before two Congressional committees today. He will face questions about his efforts to roll back Obama-era environmental rules and regulations as well as about a sizable list of ethical problems. These complaints include Pruitt’s costly first-class travel, outlandish security expenses, and allegations that he accepted a sweetheart condo rental from an oil industry lobbyist. The NYTimes.com is reporting Pruitt’s defense strategy will be “[…] to blame both career and political staff members as well as his security detail for myriad spending decisions.”

Scott Pruitt Tosses Another PVC Tube On Campfire
Scott Pruitt Tosses Another PVC Tube On Campfire at TheOnion.com

For those who wish to follow along CNN has thoughtfully compiled a list of Pruitt’s controversial regulatory actions and his alleged ethical lapses. The one ethical question most people have heard of which in a pre-Trump political universe would have been more than enough to trigger his firing is of course Pruitt’s sound-proof booth. Dubbed “the cone of silence,” it was created in his office at cost of $43,000, even though secure telecommunications facilities are available in the same building a few floors below.

So, follow along but don’t let the toxic smoke get in your eyes given that Trump and company are still determined to gut the EPA.

Climate news quiz: What’s the difference?

Short two part news quiz:whatsdif3

What follows are two recent quotes about climate change that were in the news.

Step one: simply match the quote to one of these two prominent national Republicans: Vermont Governor Phil Scott or EPA Director Scott Pruitt. Part one should be easy if you have been following the news.

Quote # 1.) “We know humans have most flourished during times of what, warming trends. So I think there’s assumptions made that because the climate is warming, that that necessarily is a bad thing. Do we really know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100, in the year 2018? ”*

Quote #2.) “Climate change could be in some ways beneficial […] when we’re seeing some of the activity in California today, with the wildfires and so forth, and lack of water in some regions of the country, if we protect our resources we could use this as an economic boon, in some respects,” **

And- Step two of the test,explain: What’s the Difference?

 They both have staff that scrub and edited out references to climate change language from official documents. Both Governor Scott and EPA head Scott Pruitt have evolved the more skeptical language they  used about the issue. And now, by suggesting climate change might be beneficial, or even an “economic boon” for some and not a disaster for the planet, the threat seems not as threatening and the need to take action less immediate.

So what is the difference between them?

* Quote # 1.) source

** Quote #2.) source